What Is the Price of Free Speech?

[NYcarbineer]

The constitution obligates government to ensure that students are allowed to exercise that right. Like I said before, the university is funded by the government, meaning it is bound to the same obligations of perpetuating free speech (equally and for all) as the government is, so long as such speech does not cause a disruption. As Rosenberger clearly points out, universities can't enforce regulations that limit the speech of the student body.

So in this case, it is a constitutional right. Pure and simple.

(Don't take this the wrong way but you're making very good arguments)

So assuming the plaintiff were to prevail,

whose responsibility are the security fees, this one, and those in the future?

It would be the university's right to apply a fee. If equally and without discrimination. If it is indeed so afraid such debates (or any debates for that matter) will cause a disruption, they would be well within their rights to charge a uniform security fee to all groups on campus. In this case, it chose to apply this fee discriminately, and when no regulation existed beforehand to justify it.

Should the plaintiff win out, the school will be forced to A) apply the fee equally or B) drop the fee idea altogether. On the other hand, the school can simply contract a security firm to watch over debates and other events held on campus without charging the student body an inordinate fee, or no fee at all. If it did this equally there would be no constitutional issue here.

But the main issue here is, as provided in Sonnier, Forsyth, and Rosenberger, you cannot charge a variable fee to a group simply because they have a controversial view, thus placing an unfair burden on their right to express that view. It doesn't matter how well intentioned the motive might be, it is still unconstitutional, in addition to it being a form of viewpoint discrimination.

Universities have legal obligations to the safety of the students.

My personal opinion of this matter is stalled without being able to see the records of previous security fees charged to student groups.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The fucking thread us about freedom of speech being infringed. Is it not?

Yes, which is why you arguing about discriminatory fees, and insisting that we have to prove that the fees were applied unfairly, is so amusing. In cases like this, all the plaintiff has to prove is that the infringement occurred.

As I already pointed out earlier in the thread, the mere existence of a fee is evidence of infringement, you have admitted that the fee exists, therefore you have admitted that their rights were infringed. You are just so stupid you think you haven't admitted that. You also think that the fact that you haven't admitted what you admitted means that the plaintiffs have to prove that the fee is discriminatory.

You, as usual, are wrong. The burden of proof is now on the people who are arguing that the infringement is reasonable and constitutional. The plaintiffs are free to counter that argument, but you have to make it first. Until you do, all I have to do is sit here and sneer.

Unfortunately, for you, I actually had to deal with other idiots in this thread, so I already destroyed the only argument that makes sense to the idiots, that the university can base the fee on the perceived reaction to the speech.

That means that you have to do one thing before you climb out of the pit of partisan hackery, you have to provide a valid reason for the fees. In this case, due to all those court decisions you don't care about, valid means that the fee is based on objective standards that are applied to everyone, not on a decision of the university or its agents that is solely at their discretion. That burden is entirely on you, and until you do that there is no merit to any argument you raise that attempts to paint you as unbiased, all you are doing is confirming your own bias.

Feel free to continue to pretend you are the unbiased one in this thread though, it amuses me, and I actually look forward to coming back into this thread just so I can sneer at the self righteous asshole who thinks he is better than I am.

The university also has a legal responsibility for campus safety, and potential legal liability for failing to provide that safety.

-That proves there was a valid reason for the security at the event -

unless of course you want to argue that.

I already cited a court case that dealt with this red herring, so thanks for bringing it up again. It proves I am winning the debate when you repeat arguments that have already been examined and dismissed by the courts.

In other words, you reinforce my position every single time you repeat it.